Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39653763›Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2025

Evolution of the ocular immune system.

John V Forrester, Paul G McMenamin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Cell and Gene Therapy in Equine Ocular Disease.Veterinary ophthalmology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. The role of inflammation in myopic retinopathy.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

John V ForresterUniversity of Aberdeen, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Institute of Medical Sciences, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, Scotland, UK. j.forrester@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3531-5945
Paul G McMenaminEmeritus Professor, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evolution of the ocular immune system should be viewed within the context of the evolution of the immune system, and indeed organisms, as a whole. Since the earliest time, the most primitive responses of single cell organisms involved molecules such as anti-microbial peptides and behaviours such as phagocytosis. Innate immunity took shape ~2.5 billion years ago while adaptive immunity and antigen specificity appeared with vertebrate evolution ~ 500 million years ago. The invention of the microscope and the germ theory of disease precipitated debate on cellular versus humoral immunity, resolved by the discovery of B and T cells. Most recently, our understanding of the microbiome and consideration of the host existing symbiotically with trillions of microbial genes (the holobiont), suggests that the immune system is a sensor of homoeostasis rather than simply a responder to pathogens. Each tissue type in multicellular organisms, such as vertebrates, has a customised response to immune challenge, with powerful reactions most evident in barrier tissues such as the skin and gut mucosa, while the eye and brain occupy the opposite extreme where responses are attenuated. The experimental background which historically led to the concept of immune privilege is discussed in this review; however, we propose that the ocular immune response should not be viewed as unique but simply an example of how the tissues variably respond in nature, more or less to the same challenge (or danger).

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEyeImmune SystemAdaptive ImmunityAnimalsHumansImmunity, Innate

Identifiers

PMID39653763
PMCPMC11794555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.